S. NATARAJAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, R. S. PATHAK
Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka – Respondent
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- These appeals by certificates are from the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 16th of August, 1985. By the impugned judgment and order the writ petitions filed by the Coffee Board and others were dismissed. In order to appreciate the questions involved in the decision, it may be noted that the appellant herein - Coffee Board contended that the compulsory delivery of coffee under the Coffee Act, 1942 extinguishing all marketing rights of the growers was compulsory acquisition and not sale or purchase to attract levy of purchase tax; it was further contended that the appellant was only a trustee or agent of growers not exigible to purchase tax and that all export sales were in the course of export immune to tax under Article 286 of the Constitution.
2. It was held by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that an element of consensuality subsists even in compulsory sales governed by law and once there is an element of consensuality, however minimal that may be, whether express or implied, then that would be sale or purchase for purposes of Sale of Goods Act and the same would be exigible to sales or purchase tax as the ca
followed : State of Kerala v. Bhavani Tea Produce Co.
relied on : Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore
Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CTO
referred to : Indian Coffee Board v. State of Madras
Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CTO
State of Madras v. Cannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.
relied on : New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CST
Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CTO
New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CST
State of Madras v. Cannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy
approved : Indian Coffee Board v. State of Madras
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.